« 이전계속 »
NAMES OF THE CASES
REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.
226 190 57 32
159 470 359
136 111 398 443
Alexander ds. Stewart, et al,
248 209 202 479 170
449 340 898 202
Turner vs. State use Robey,
Union Bank of Maryland vs. Poultney, et al,
JAMES STEWART'S LESSEE vs. ROBERT JONES, of GEORGE.
E. S. June, 1836.
J. S. died in 1797, intestate, and seized of two parcels of land, which had
descended to her from her father, leaving an only brother, her heir at law. Upon his death without issue, and intestate, it was Held, that though the descent from his sister to him was an immediate descent, according to the principles of common law, it was also mediate from the father, from whom the brother derived his inheritable blood ; and was therefore a descent upon
the part of the father, and embraced by the act of descents of 1786, ch 45. Though according to the principles of the English law of descents, the descent
from brother to brother is immediate, and title may be made by one brother to another, without mentioning their common ancestor; yet such ancestor is regarded as the fountain of inheritable blood, and consequently the
descent is mediate from him. The legislature of this state, by the act of 1786, ch. 45, changed the Englisk
common law of descents in many of its essential features, and imparted new inheritable capacities unknown to that law. On failure of lineal heirs in the descending line, if the estate descended to the intestate on the part of the father, it directs that it shall descend to the brothers and sisters of the blood of the father, without discriminating between the whole, and the half bloods ; showing manifestly, that though the descent is immediate from the person who died seized, the inheritable blood is derived from the ancestor, from whom the estate descended to such person,